Waikato RC 14 October 2013 – R 2
ID: JCA11132
Code:
Thoroughbred
Meet Title:
Waikato RC - 14 October 2013
Meet Chair:
ADooley
Race Date:
2013/10/14
Race Number:
R2
Decision:
Because Ms Myers was not the required distance clear of SPEEDSKI when moving out, I find the charge proved.
Penalty:
I note Ms Myers was suspended on October 10 at Wairarapa which commenced from the close of racing on October 14 to the close of racing on October 24.
Accordingly, I impose a suspension on Ms Myers which will commence after racing on October 24 and conclude after racing on 3 November 2013 (7 days).
Charge:
Careless Riding
Facts:
Following race 2, Rotary Club of Paeroa 1350, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Coles, alleged that Ms K Myers angled her mount LADY LE FAY outwards when not sufficiently clear of SPEEDSKI which was checked near the 450 metres.
Ms Myers acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge and the Rule.
Rule 638(1) (d) states: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
Submissions for Decision:
Mr Oatham identified using the back on film that nearing the home turn Ms Myers riding LADY LE FAY was racing adjacent to the running rail with SPEEDSKI ridden by Mrs Thornton was in a 2 wide position. He said coming around the bend Ms Myers attempts to come away from the running rail which places Mrs Thornton in restricted room causing her to take a hold and check her mount. He noted at that point Mr Hills' mount was on the outside of Mrs Thornton which meant she was unable to move out any further.
Mr Oatham demonstrated on the side on video films that Ms Myers clearly turns her horse out away from the rail and at no point was she clear of Mrs Thornton's mount when shifting out. He highlighted on the side on film that after a few frames on the video Ms Myers had shifted out to be 4 or 5 off the rail. He said that is the distance Ms Myers had travelled when not sufficiently clear. He stated this resulted in Mrs Thornton being taken out wider on the track and she was forced to check her mount when getting close to the heels of Mr Hills' mount.
Mr Coles called Mrs Thornton as a witness. Mrs Thornton confirmed that she suffered interference prior to the home turn when Ms Myers was racing on her inside. She stated that Ms Myers angled her mount out for a run when only half a length clear of her mount. She confirmed that her mount had been taken out and lost quite a bit of ground as a result of the interference.
When asked by Mr Coles, Mrs Thornton believed that her mount was forced out by 7 or 8 horse widths and it cost her 8 to 10 lengths. Mrs Thornton added that her mount ran 5th however, she believed the interference cost her running 3rd.
Ms Myers then questioned Mrs Thornton if Mr Hills had contributed to the incident. Mrs Thornton stated that she firmly believed the movement came from Ms Myers on her inside. Mrs Thornton added that her mount was forced out into Mr Hills by Ms Myers moving out.
Ms Myers under cross examination asked Mr Oatham to show her on the films where he can say that she has come out and checked Mrs Thornton. Mr Oatham demonstrated on the films where Ms Myers is pushing her mount forward when shifting ground outwards and in doing so takes Mrs Thornton’s mount out by about 4 horse widths.
Ms Myers admitted she shifted 1 off the rail but did not accept Mr Oatham's interpretation that she had moved out to a 4 wide position which interfered with Mrs Thornton's mount.
Mr Oatham advised Ms Myers that would be an issue for the Judicial Committee to consider. Ms Myers accepted this.
Ms Myers submitted that she was racing on the rail with Mrs Thornton racing in a 3 wide position with Mr Hills racing on her outside. She said that she rode her horse forward and identified Mrs Thornton got “chewed out of it”. Ms Myers didn't believe the video footage was good enough to prove anything and felt it was her word against Mrs Thornton’s. Ms Myers did state that her horse may have over reacted to the incident.
Ms Myers confirmed on the back on films the racing position of herself, Mrs Thornton and Mr Hills.
Ms Myers acknowledged to me that she was aware of the two length Rule regarding interference and riders have a duty of care when shifting ground.
In response to a question from the Committee, Ms Myers believed the movement had come from Mr Hills who was racing on the outside of Mrs Thornton. Ms Myers said this inward movement contributed to the incident. She believed that she was 2 lengths clear of Mrs Thornton at the time of the interference and noted Mrs Thornton had already checked when she moved out.
In summing up, Mr Coles submitted that he concurs with Mr Oatham's interpretation of the incident. He said he firmly believes that Ms Myers was never more than half a length clear of Mrs Thornton to shift ground out. He said Ms Myers was riding her mount forward when moving outwards to a 4 wide position which resulted in Mrs Thornton being checked.
Ms Myers in summing up submitted that she does not believe she caused Mrs Thornton to check her mount. She stated that she was riding in a forward manner and there was no video proof to say she caused the interference. She added that she only came out once Mrs Thornton had pulled her mount out of it.
Reasons for Decision:
I carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times I established that when Ms Myers angled her mount outwards near the 450 metres she was only half a length clear of SPEEDSKI. This resulted in Mrs Thornton losing her rightful running line with her mount suffering a check which cost her a least 3 lengths. Mr Hills who was racing on the outside of Mrs Thornton appears to have just held his ground. Mrs Thornton was firm in her view that the movement had come from her inside and Ms Myers caused the interference. I am satisfied the available video films support the evidence of Mrs Thornton and the Stipendiary Stewards.
I note that “interference” is defined as: a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.
Submissions for Penalty:
Mr Coles produced Ms Myers' record which showed 6 previous breaches under this Rule in the last 12 months as follows:
10 October 2013 – 6 days, 21 September 2013 - 6 days, 11 September 2013 - 3 days and a $600 fine, 9 February 2013 – 5 days, 12 November 2012 – 4 days, 10 November 2012 – 3 days.
Mr Coles said that her record is not good and it speaks for itself. He described the interference as mid range and noted the check Mrs Thornton received. He submitted a minimum 6 day suspension.
Ms Myers acknowledged that she was suspended up to and including 24th October as a result of a careless riding breach at Wairarapa on October 10. She did not wish to submit anything for me to consider regarding penalty because in her view she was not guilty of this breach.
Ms Myers did acknowledge that she had no intention of riding at Invercargill on 1 November and therefore this date would not be included in her penalty.
Reasons for Penalty:
I carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. I have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. There are no mitigating factors in this case that Ms Myers can be given credit for. The aggravating factors are Ms Myers' very poor record under this Rule in the last 12 months and I assess the level of carelessness as mid range. I note Ms Myers was only half a length clear when moving outwards which resulted in SPEEDSKI being checked and losing 3 to 4 lengths.
I expressed my concern to Ms Myers that today’s breach was her 4th careless riding charge in the last month.
I acknowledge that Ms Myers is a busy rider. I have credited Ms Myers to include Banks Peninsula on 3 November due to this meeting being close to cup week in Christchurch where Ms Myers has a history of riding.
After taking into account all the above factors I consider an appropriate penalty is a 7 day suspension.
JCA Decision Fields (raw)
Dmitry: This section contains all JCA fields migrated from the raw data.
Data from these fields should be mapped appropriately to display amongst the standard fields above; please make note of any values below that are missing in the above standard fields but should be there.
hearingid: 14c70449e8eed961f12382bbfce8b9a2
informantnumber: A2783
horsename:
hearing_racingtype:
startdate: no date provided
newcharge:
plea: denied
penaltyrequired: 1
decisiondate: 09/10/2013
hearing_title: Waikato RC 14 October 2013 - R 2
charge:
Careless Riding
facts:
Following race 2, Rotary Club of Paeroa 1350, an Information was filed pursuant to Rule 638(1)(d). The Informant, Mr Coles, alleged that Ms K Myers angled her mount LADY LE FAY outwards when not sufficiently clear of SPEEDSKI which was checked near the 450 metres.
Ms Myers acknowledged that she understood the nature of the charge and the Rule.
Rule 638(1) (d) states: A Rider shall not ride a horse in a manner which the Judicial Committee considers to be careless.
appealdecision:
isappeal:
submissionsfordecision:
Mr Oatham identified using the back on film that nearing the home turn Ms Myers riding LADY LE FAY was racing adjacent to the running rail with SPEEDSKI ridden by Mrs Thornton was in a 2 wide position. He said coming around the bend Ms Myers attempts to come away from the running rail which places Mrs Thornton in restricted room causing her to take a hold and check her mount. He noted at that point Mr Hills' mount was on the outside of Mrs Thornton which meant she was unable to move out any further.
Mr Oatham demonstrated on the side on video films that Ms Myers clearly turns her horse out away from the rail and at no point was she clear of Mrs Thornton's mount when shifting out. He highlighted on the side on film that after a few frames on the video Ms Myers had shifted out to be 4 or 5 off the rail. He said that is the distance Ms Myers had travelled when not sufficiently clear. He stated this resulted in Mrs Thornton being taken out wider on the track and she was forced to check her mount when getting close to the heels of Mr Hills' mount.
Mr Coles called Mrs Thornton as a witness. Mrs Thornton confirmed that she suffered interference prior to the home turn when Ms Myers was racing on her inside. She stated that Ms Myers angled her mount out for a run when only half a length clear of her mount. She confirmed that her mount had been taken out and lost quite a bit of ground as a result of the interference.
When asked by Mr Coles, Mrs Thornton believed that her mount was forced out by 7 or 8 horse widths and it cost her 8 to 10 lengths. Mrs Thornton added that her mount ran 5th however, she believed the interference cost her running 3rd.
Ms Myers then questioned Mrs Thornton if Mr Hills had contributed to the incident. Mrs Thornton stated that she firmly believed the movement came from Ms Myers on her inside. Mrs Thornton added that her mount was forced out into Mr Hills by Ms Myers moving out.
Ms Myers under cross examination asked Mr Oatham to show her on the films where he can say that she has come out and checked Mrs Thornton. Mr Oatham demonstrated on the films where Ms Myers is pushing her mount forward when shifting ground outwards and in doing so takes Mrs Thornton’s mount out by about 4 horse widths.
Ms Myers admitted she shifted 1 off the rail but did not accept Mr Oatham's interpretation that she had moved out to a 4 wide position which interfered with Mrs Thornton's mount.
Mr Oatham advised Ms Myers that would be an issue for the Judicial Committee to consider. Ms Myers accepted this.
Ms Myers submitted that she was racing on the rail with Mrs Thornton racing in a 3 wide position with Mr Hills racing on her outside. She said that she rode her horse forward and identified Mrs Thornton got “chewed out of it”. Ms Myers didn't believe the video footage was good enough to prove anything and felt it was her word against Mrs Thornton’s. Ms Myers did state that her horse may have over reacted to the incident.
Ms Myers confirmed on the back on films the racing position of herself, Mrs Thornton and Mr Hills.
Ms Myers acknowledged to me that she was aware of the two length Rule regarding interference and riders have a duty of care when shifting ground.
In response to a question from the Committee, Ms Myers believed the movement had come from Mr Hills who was racing on the outside of Mrs Thornton. Ms Myers said this inward movement contributed to the incident. She believed that she was 2 lengths clear of Mrs Thornton at the time of the interference and noted Mrs Thornton had already checked when she moved out.
In summing up, Mr Coles submitted that he concurs with Mr Oatham's interpretation of the incident. He said he firmly believes that Ms Myers was never more than half a length clear of Mrs Thornton to shift ground out. He said Ms Myers was riding her mount forward when moving outwards to a 4 wide position which resulted in Mrs Thornton being checked.
Ms Myers in summing up submitted that she does not believe she caused Mrs Thornton to check her mount. She stated that she was riding in a forward manner and there was no video proof to say she caused the interference. She added that she only came out once Mrs Thornton had pulled her mount out of it.
reasonsfordecision:
I carefully considered all the evidence and submissions as presented. Having reviewed the video films several times I established that when Ms Myers angled her mount outwards near the 450 metres she was only half a length clear of SPEEDSKI. This resulted in Mrs Thornton losing her rightful running line with her mount suffering a check which cost her a least 3 lengths. Mr Hills who was racing on the outside of Mrs Thornton appears to have just held his ground. Mrs Thornton was firm in her view that the movement had come from her inside and Ms Myers caused the interference. I am satisfied the available video films support the evidence of Mrs Thornton and the Stipendiary Stewards.
I note that “interference” is defined as: a horse crossing another horse without being at least its own length and one other clear length in front of such other horse at the time of crossing.
Decision:
Because Ms Myers was not the required distance clear of SPEEDSKI when moving out, I find the charge proved.
sumissionsforpenalty:
Mr Coles produced Ms Myers' record which showed 6 previous breaches under this Rule in the last 12 months as follows:
10 October 2013 – 6 days, 21 September 2013 - 6 days, 11 September 2013 - 3 days and a $600 fine, 9 February 2013 – 5 days, 12 November 2012 – 4 days, 10 November 2012 – 3 days.
Mr Coles said that her record is not good and it speaks for itself. He described the interference as mid range and noted the check Mrs Thornton received. He submitted a minimum 6 day suspension.
Ms Myers acknowledged that she was suspended up to and including 24th October as a result of a careless riding breach at Wairarapa on October 10. She did not wish to submit anything for me to consider regarding penalty because in her view she was not guilty of this breach.
Ms Myers did acknowledge that she had no intention of riding at Invercargill on 1 November and therefore this date would not be included in her penalty.
reasonsforpenalty:
I carefully considered all the evidence and submissions presented. I have adopted 5 riding days as the starting point in considering the term of suspension for this careless riding charge. There are no mitigating factors in this case that Ms Myers can be given credit for. The aggravating factors are Ms Myers' very poor record under this Rule in the last 12 months and I assess the level of carelessness as mid range. I note Ms Myers was only half a length clear when moving outwards which resulted in SPEEDSKI being checked and losing 3 to 4 lengths.
I expressed my concern to Ms Myers that today’s breach was her 4th careless riding charge in the last month.
I acknowledge that Ms Myers is a busy rider. I have credited Ms Myers to include Banks Peninsula on 3 November due to this meeting being close to cup week in Christchurch where Ms Myers has a history of riding.
After taking into account all the above factors I consider an appropriate penalty is a 7 day suspension.
penalty:
I note Ms Myers was suspended on October 10 at Wairarapa which commenced from the close of racing on October 14 to the close of racing on October 24.
Accordingly, I impose a suspension on Ms Myers which will commence after racing on October 24 and conclude after racing on 3 November 2013 (7 days).
hearing_type: Hearing
Rules: 638(1)(d)
Informant: Mr A Coles - Stipendiary Steward
JockeysandTrainer: Ms K Myers - Licensed Rider of LADY LE FAY
Otherperson: Mr J Oatham - Senior Stipendiary Steward, Mrs Thornton - Licensed Rider of SPEEDSKI
PersonPresent:
Respondent:
StipendSteward:
raceid: 76192a503a81c73833e209ac0fba6ca7
race_expapproval:
racecancelled: 0
race_noreport: 0
race_emailed1: 0
race_emailed2: 0
race_title: R2
submittochair:
race_expappcomment:
race_km:
race_otherexp:
race_chair:
race_pm1:
race_pm2:
meetid: 47eaad3935b87e1a06780b78f8c7575c
meet_expapproval:
meet_noreport: 0
waitingforpublication: 0
meet_emailed1: 0
meet_emailed2: 0
meetdate: 14/10/2013
meet_title: Waikato RC - 14 October 2013
meet_expappcomment:
meet_km:
meet_otherexp:
tracklocation: waikato-rc
meet_racingtype: thoroughbred-racing
meet_chair: ADooley
meet_pm1: none
meet_pm2: none
name: Waikato RC